Eugene Ch'ng
Abstract
When does a machine-created work becomes art? What is art? Can machine artworks fit in to the historical and present discourse? Do machine artworks demonstrate creativity, or are they a type of new media from which artists extend their creativity with? Will solely machine-created artworks be acceptable by our artworlds? This article probes these questions by first identifying the frameworks for defining and explaining art and evaluating its suitability for explaining machine artworks. It then explores how artworks have a necessary relationship with their human artists and the wider context of history, institutions, styles, and approaches and with audiences and artworlds. The article then questions whether machines have such a relational context and whether machines will ever live up to our standard of what constitutes an artwork as defined by us or whether machines are good only for assisting creativity. The question of intellectual property, rights, and ownership are also discussed for human--machine artworks and purely machine-produced works of art. The article critically assesses the viability of machines as artists as the central question in the historical discourse, extended through art and the artworld and evaluates machine-produced work from such a basis.
- P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, and C. Stringer. 2007. Rethinking the Human Revolution. Cambridge McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res. Univ. Cambridge.Google Scholar
- H. Floss and N. Rouquerol. 2007. Les chemins de l'art aurignacien en Europe/Das Aurignacien und die Anfänge der Kunst in Europa. In Éditions Musée-Forum Aurignac. Aurignac.Google Scholar
- O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilhão. 2006. Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. In Proceedings of the Symposium. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Portugal.Google Scholar
- N. J. Conard. 2009. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459 (2009), 248.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Bentkowska-Kafel, T. Cashen, and H. Gardiner. 2005. Digital art History: A Subject in Transition. Computers and the History of Art Series, Volume 1. Intellect Books. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lu. 2010. Teaching 21st-century art education in a virtual age: Art cafe@ second life. Art Educ. 63 (2010), 19--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Brown. 2008. The Mechanisation of Art, P. Husbands, O. Holland, and M. Wheeler (Eds.). The Mechanical Mind in History. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Tinguely. n.d. Meta-Mechanik. Jean Tinguelys Maschinentheater.Google Scholar
- ArtistesRobots, Artistes & Robots, ’Artistes Robot. (5 April--9 July 2018), The Grand Palais, Paris Fr. (2018). Retrieved June 23, 2018 from https://www.grandpalais.fr/en/event/artists-robots.Google Scholar
- B. Costello, L. Muller, S. Amitani, and E. Edmonds. 2005. Understanding the experience of interactive art: Iamascope in Beta_space. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australas. Conference on Interact. Entertain. Creativity & Cognition Studios Press, 49--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Edmonds. 2011. Interactive art, Interacting. Art, Res. Creat. Pract. Candy Edmonds Oxfordsh. Libr. Publ. (2011), 18--32.Google Scholar
- J. Bird, M. D'inverno, J. Prophet. 2007. Net Work: An interactive artwork designed using an interdisciplinary performative approach. Digit. Creat. 18 (2007), 11--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Prophet. 2001. TechnoSphere:“Real” time,“artificial” life. Leonardo 34 (2001), 309--312.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Ch'ng, D. Harrison, and S. Moore. 2017. Shift-life interactive art: Mixed-reality artificial ecosystem simulation. Presence 26 (2017), 157--181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Schmidhuber. 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neur. Netw. 61 (2015), 85--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. D. P. Lee. 2003. The Republic, Penguin, 2003.Google Scholar
- A. C. Danto. 1997. Brillo Box, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- J. Dewey. 1934. Art as Experience. Balch & Company, Minton, NY.Google Scholar
- C. Bell. 1924. Art. London Chatto Wind.Google Scholar
- L. Tolstoy. 1962. What Is art?: And Essays on Art. Reprint Services Corp.Google Scholar
- B. Croce. 1995. Guide to Aesthetics. Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
- M. Weitz. 1956. The role of theory in aesthetics. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 15 (1956), 27--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Gaut. 2000. “ Art” as a cluster concept, na, 2000.Google Scholar
- D. Dutton. 2007. “But they don't have our Concept of Art. Arguing about Art Contemp. Philos. Debates. 448.Google Scholar
- J. T. Dean. 2003. The nature of concepts and the definition of art. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 61 (2003), 29--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. C. Beardsley. 1982. Redefining art. In Aesthetic Point View. 298--315.Google Scholar
- M. C. Beardsley. 1970. The aesthetic point of view. Metaphilosophy 1 (1970), 39--58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Dickie. 2000. The institutional theory of art, na, 2000.Google Scholar
- A. Danto. 1964. The artworld. J. Philos. 61 (1964), 571--584.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. G. Collingwood. 1938. The Principles of Art. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- O. Rank. 1932. Art and Artist (1932).Google Scholar
- G. Dickie. 1969. Defining art. Am. Philos. Q. 6 (1969), 253--256.Google Scholar
- H. S. Becker. 1982. Art Worlds. University of California Press.Google Scholar
- S. Thornton. 2012. Seven Days in the Art World. Granta Books, 2012.Google Scholar
- S. Mithen. 2005. Middle palaeolithic ‘creativity.’ In Creat. Hum. Evol. Prehistory. Routledge, 116--131.Google Scholar
- M. A. Boden. 2005. What is creativity? In Creat. Hum. Evol. Prehistory. Routledge, 27--55.Google Scholar
- P. Coremans. 1949. Van Meegeren's faked Vermeers and de Hooghs. A Scientific Examination.Google Scholar
- A. C. Danto. 1974. The transfiguration of the commonplace. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 33 (1974), 139--148.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Dickie. 1987. The Art Circle (1987).Google Scholar
- M. C. Beardsley. 1976. Is art essentially institutional? Cult. Art. (1976), 194--209.Google Scholar
- T. Cohen. 1973. The possibility of art: Remarks on a proposal by Dickie. Philos. Rev. 82 (1973), 69--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Turner. 2017. Photographer in bizarre selfie court battle reveals that being sued by a monkey has left him broke, Telegr. (2017). Retrieved June 22, 2018 from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/photographer-centre-bizarre-court-battle-reveals-sued-monkey/.Google Scholar
- C. Freeland. 2003. Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Art by Computing Machinery: Is Machine Art Acceptable in the Artworld?
Recommendations
Aesthetics, art, evolution
EvoMUSART'13: Proceedings of the Second international conference on Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and DesignThis paper discusses issues in evolutionary art related to Art Theory and Aesthetics with a view to better understanding how they might contribute to both research and practice. Aesthetics is a term often used in evolutionary art, but is regularly used ...
Art and interaction: some reflections
Create'10: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on The Interaction DesignThis paper reflects on 20 years of collaborations with artists on art projects. We aim to explore the interplay between HCI theory and practice, and artistic theory and practice that has informed, supported and sometimes hindered the collaborations. The ...
Orientation judgment for abstract paintings
Artists decide the orientation at which an abstract painting should be hung based on their ideas, but the correct orientation is not obvious to other viewers. Some studies have found that abstract paintings at the correct orientations generally get ...
Comments